Kansas has one goal: to announce to the country that it is the most backwards, hate filled, flat earth loving, theocracy around. God bless the Mullahs!

Posted on Wed, Apr. 06, 2005

AMENDMENT PASSES

GAY MARRIAGE BAN WINS 70% OF VOTE

BY SUZANNE PEREZ TOBIAS, JOE RODRIGUEZ AND STEVE PAINTER

The Wichita Eagle

GAY MARRIAGE BAN WINS 70% OF VOTE

Kansans voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, a result supporters hailed as a rousing endorsement of traditional marriage. More than 550,000 people approved the measure by more than a 2-1 ratio, making Kansas the 18th state to ban gay marriage in its constitution.

"We felt all along that Kansans would do the right thing, so we're not surprised how they voted," said the Rev. Joe Wright, senior pastor at Wichita's Central Christian Church and a leading proponent of the amendment.

"We are just thrilled with the overwhelming numbers."

Opponents, meanwhile, called the election "merely the beginning of the fight for fairness in this state," pledging to challenge the measure in courts.

"One thing I can promise you is that the voices of fairness in this state will not be silenced," said Bruce Ney, chairman of Kansans for Fairness, a Topeka-based coalition of gay and civil-rights groups.

"We will not stand by and let thousands of our neighbors, friends and relatives live as second-class citizens."

Wright, part of a Christian conservative movement that began pushing for the amendment last year, said amendment supporters may now turn their attention to other issues such as gambling, evolution and abortion.

He said he expects the marriage amendment to face court challenges, but isn't too concerned.

He said the amendment bolsters a state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and is the most sure-fire way to prevent courts from granting marital rights to gay and lesbian couples.

"In no other state has it been overturned when it has been a constitutional change like this," he said.

The Rev. Terry Fox, pastor of Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church and another leading supporter of the amendment, said the amendment has "taken it out of the hands of some liberal activist judge in the state of Kansas.

"It has... put teeth in the law. It has strengthened the law," he said.

Local opponents were disappointed but not surprised by the results.

Patrick Hutchison, chairman of Equality Kansas, a gay-rights group based in Wichita, said the group plans to use Tuesday's vote as a call to unite and work harder on other issues, including anti-discrimination policies, hate-crimes legislation and adoption laws.

"There's a whole slew of things" the group plans to fight for, Hutchison said.

So far, every state that has put a gay-marriage ban to voters has seen it pass by a wide margin. Mississippi's amendment garnered 86 percent of the vote last year; Oklahoma's, 76 percent; and Missouri's, 71 percent.

In Kansas, 70 percent of voters cast their ballots for the amendment, passing it by 170,000 votes.

The majority of voters in only one county -- Douglas County, home to Lawrence and the University of Kansas -- appeared to vote no in unofficial results.

The Kansas amendment has two parts. One defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. The other explains that no other relationship is entitled to the "rights or incidents of marriage."

Throughout the campaign, opponents of the amendment said it goes beyond banning gay marriage and could call into question legal contracts that recreate rights reserved for married couples.

Thomas Witt, field organizer for Equality Kansas, said it will be up to the courts to interpret that second part of the amendment.

"The people who push this complain about activist un-elected judges, but the only people who are going to be able to figure this out now are un-elected judges," Witt said.

"We don't know what's going to happen to Paragraph B, but we do know that it's basically going to give license to any petty official who doesn't like gay families to discriminate."

Potential repercussions of the amendment, which will likely take effect April 29, are hard to gauge. But both sides say the Kansas amendment will likely face court challenges.

Ney, of Kansans for Fairness, said litigation may take a while to play out, as businesses and government agencies decide how to react. He noted a lawsuit filed Monday in Michigan that challenges the termination of domestic-partner benefits.

Ney said lawsuits could be filed if a hospital questions an unmarried couple's medical power of attorney, for example. Or, a gay couple could seek a marriage license and force the issue into the courts.

"It will happen," Ney said.

Voters in 13 states approved constitutional gay marriage bans last year, joining four others. Similar proposals will be on the ballot next year in Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee.

Sedgwick County Election Commissioner Bill Gale said the ballot measure drew more people to the polls. He said about 38 percent of registered voters voted Tuesday, significantly more than normally vote during an off-year spring election.

Some local voters, like Nancy Campbell of Wichita, saw the amendment as a way to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

"I believe that God has created marriage," said Campbell, 41, a teacher and mother of three. "We are believers and go by how the Bible says things should be done."

Among the amendment's opponents is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who said she supports the existing state law and views it as sufficient.

Billy Williams, a retired postal worker from Wichita, agreed. He voted against the amendment.

"I voted no because it is so discriminating," Williams said. "Everyone needs companionship every once in a while. As you get older, you don't want to be by yourself."

About 30 amendment supporters gathered Tuesday night at a northeast Wichita hotel to watch the results.

"What it (the election) has done is it shows what can happen when all denominations, when the entire body of Christ comes together for a cause," Fox said.

hate wins again (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/11321672.htm)

Saulbadguy

04-06-2005, 03:35 PM

At least its not legal to discriminate against them here in Topeka..stuck that to the Phelps clan, yes sir we did.

Brock

04-06-2005, 03:37 PM

I fail to see how pandering to homos would make Kansas a better place to live. They need to do a better job of stocking the lakes though.

Cochise

04-06-2005, 03:38 PM

What is that? 18 out of 18 states now where it's passed with an overwhelming majority?

mlyonsd

04-06-2005, 03:45 PM

And here I thought from the title this would be a thread that was interesting and ground breaking.

A red state that would vote like it did? Not surprising and very predictable. Move along, nothing here to see.

For those that don't like it I'd suggest moving to Canada or France.

vailpass

04-06-2005, 03:47 PM

"Kansas has one goal: to announce to the country that it is the most backwards, hate filled, flat earth loving, theocracy around. God bless the Mullahs!

So your view is the enlightened one and the vast majority of the voting public are all ill-infomred and hateful?

"In Kansas, 70 percent of voters cast their ballots for the amendment, passing it by 170,000 votes.

Is it a burden being so much smarter than the other 70%?

Simplex3

04-06-2005, 03:49 PM

Is it a burden being so much smarter than the other 70%?
If he answers that question it will be second hand information.

Saulbadguy

04-06-2005, 03:51 PM

"Kansas has one goal: to announce to the country that it is the most backwards, hate filled, flat earth loving, theocracy around. God bless the Mullahs!

So your view is the enlightened one and the vast majority of the voting public are all ill-infomred and hateful?

"In Kansas, 70 percent of voters cast their ballots for the amendment, passing it by 170,000 votes.

Is it a burden being so much smarter than the other 70%?
Of the voting public, indeed. It'll change. The old folk will die off, and so will their "values". Thats the main reason i'm not worried about it.

the Talking Can

04-06-2005, 03:51 PM

I fail to see how pandering to homos would make Kansas a better place to live. They need to do a better job of stocking the lakes though.

we let you out in public....

the Talking Can

04-06-2005, 03:55 PM

civil rights = "pandering"

at least the Mullahs are articulate in Kansas

Cochise

04-06-2005, 03:56 PM

One thing I think is funny, is that the activists opposing what is the clear will of the people in 100% of the states given the chance to vote on it so far would tell you that your morals don't apply to them, but at the same time apply theirs to you by saying you are "wrong" for voting to approve "oppression" and "injustice".

Simplex3

04-06-2005, 03:57 PM

civil rights = "pandering"

at least the Mullahs are articulate in Kansas
How about you fly your happy ass over to Iran and bitch about oppression?

The only reason you're bitching about it here is because you aren't truly oppressed and you know there is no danger in it. Pu**y.

Brock

04-06-2005, 04:01 PM

we let you out in public....

Ha ha. Was that supposed to be an insult?

Quit playing the victim. If you don't like Kansas, sack up and leave. ROFL

Radar Chief

04-06-2005, 04:02 PM

So your view is the enlightened one and the vast majority of the voting public are all ill-infomred and hateful?

I take it you’ve never met the Talking Can before?

RaiderH8r

04-06-2005, 04:13 PM

I take it you’ve never met the Talking Can before?
No, I haven't....can the can dance to death metal?

Radar Chief

04-06-2005, 04:23 PM

No, I haven't....can the can dance to death metal?

I’m sure he’d try, but would wind up tripping over his Birkenstocks. ;)

Duck Dog

04-06-2005, 04:59 PM

So by putting the vote to the people some how equates into civil rights oppression?

Of the voting public, indeed. It'll change. The old folk will die off, and so will their "values". Thats the main reason i'm not worried about it.

Don't count on it. That's the same tune the "pot will be legalized by the next generation" 60's hippies sang. Still not gonna' happen.

I'm 38 and will carry out the "values" you think will die off for as long as I live. The voting tendecies of everyone with whom I work run pretty true to form . I'd estimate around 70% hold traditional values. Same with the town in which I grew up. Same as most of the towns all over America.
Statistics say the majority of our children will end up with our values, the values with which they are raised.

Brock

04-06-2005, 05:45 PM

Of the voting public, indeed. It'll change. The old folk will die off, and so will their "values". Thats the main reason i'm not worried about it.

Ever get tired of being wrong?

Simplex3

04-06-2005, 05:55 PM

So by putting the vote to the people some how equates into civil rights oppression?

Don't count on it. That's the same tune the "pot will be legalized by the next generation" 60's hippies sang. Still not gonna' happen.

I'm 38 and will carry out the "values" you think will die off for as long as I live. The voting tendecies of everyone with whom I work run pretty true to form . I'd estimate around 70% hold traditional values. Same with the town in which I grew up. Same as most of the towns all over America.
Statistics say the majority of our children will end up with our values, the values with which they are raised.
Thats being quite selective. Look at how far liberalism has progressed since the 50's. Who would have thought, say..55 years ago, that we would have such things as hardcore porn, swearing on television, and god for bid beer sales on Sunday.

Saulbadguy

04-06-2005, 05:56 PM

Ever get tired of being wrong?
Get back to me in 20 years, and then i'll let you know.

KCWolfman

04-06-2005, 05:57 PM

Thats being quite selective. Look at how far liberalism has progressed since the 50's. Who would have thought, say..55 years ago, that we would have such things as hardcore porn, swearing on television, and god for bid beer sales on Sunday.
It also promised Universal Health Care, The Best in Schools and Education in the World Without a Grading System, and a Welfare State.

All of which were fought off successfully.

Brock

04-06-2005, 05:59 PM

Thats being quite selective. Look at how far liberalism has progressed since the 50's. Who would have thought, say..55 years ago, that we would have such things as hardcore porn, swearing on television, and god for bid beer sales on Sunday.

Ha ha. Hardcore porn has been around for centuries, and yes, so has drinking beer on Sunday.

vailpass

04-06-2005, 06:00 PM

Thats being quite selective. Look at how far liberalism has progressed since the 50's. Who would have thought, say..55 years ago, that we would have such things as hardcore porn, swearing on television, and god for bid beer sales on Sunday.

I'm not saying change doesn't/won't occur, but huge social change comes more like an iceberg than like the lightning strike it seemed you were describing.
MMMMMMMMMM Cold beer & Porn......what were we talking about?

Calcountry

04-06-2005, 07:14 PM

Of the voting public, indeed. It'll change. The old folk will die off, and so will their "values". Thats the main reason i'm not worried about it.:Poke:Hey Saul, How do Gays procreate?

How many grandkids to Gays have?

What is the average lifespan of a queer eyed guy vs the straight married guy?

Your supposition is extremely biased towards your own anecdotal take on an evolving world and is not supported by the macro social facts.

Calcountry

04-06-2005, 07:16 PM

Don't count on it. That's the same tune the "pot will be legalized by the next generation" 60's hippies sang. Still not gonna' happen.

I'm 38 and will carry out the "values" you think will die off for as long as I live. The voting tendecies of everyone with whom I work run pretty true to form . I'd estimate around 70% hold traditional values. Same with the town in which I grew up. Same as most of the towns all over America.
Statistics say the majority of our children will end up with our values, the values with which they are raised.The last time I checked, queers aren't very successful at getting each other pregnant.

Calcountry

04-06-2005, 07:17 PM

Get back to me in 20 years, and then i'll let you know.I hope we are both still alive to be debating it then. :p

KCN

04-06-2005, 07:43 PM

So your view is the enlightened one and the vast majority of the voting public are all ill-infomred...?

Yes.

Saulbadguy

04-06-2005, 08:13 PM

I hope we are both still alive to be debating it then. :p
Just think of the collosal post counts.

Michael Michigan

04-06-2005, 08:16 PM

Of the voting public, indeed. It'll change. The old folk will die off, and so will their "values". Thats the main reason i'm not worried about it.

As the old die off, the young get old.

As that happens they mature and their opinions and values change.

As you age, this will be a lesson you will learn.

siberian khatru

04-06-2005, 08:56 PM

As the old die off, the young get old.

As that happens they mature and their opinions and values change.

As you age, this will be a lesson you will learn.

Spoken like a true old fart.

Cannibal

04-06-2005, 09:01 PM

Kansas has one goal: to announce to the country that it is the most backwards, hate filled, flat earth loving, theocracy around. God bless the Mullahs!

Dude. Basically, you're going to have to move. This place sucks major gonad. I WILL be moving, it's a matter of when, not if. This place doesn't have enough going for it with regards to the economy, the environment, entertainment and general quality of life to be a bible thumping state of aholes. Now maybe if the it was better in those aforementioned areas, it would be tolerable. But it's not. So **** this place.

KCWolfman

04-06-2005, 09:05 PM

Dude. Basically, you're going to have to move. This place sucks major gonad. I WILL be moving, it's a matter of when, not if. This place doesn't have enough going for it with regards to the economy, the environment, entertainment and general quality of life to be a bible thumping state of aholes. Now maybe if the it was better in those aforementioned areas, it would be tolerable. But it's not. So **** this place.
Make sure your taxes are paid before you leave, have a nice day.

Cannibal

04-06-2005, 09:06 PM

Make sure your taxes are paid before you leave, have a nice day.

Oh I will, I will.

ROFL

Saulbadguy

04-06-2005, 09:07 PM

Dude. Basically, you're going to have to move. This place sucks major gonad. I WILL be moving, it's a matter of when, not if. This place doesn't have enough going for it with regards to the economy, the environment, entertainment and general quality of life to be a bible thumping state of aholes. Now maybe if the it was better in those aforementioned areas, it would be tolerable. But it's not. So **** this place.
Not to mention our basketball teams SUCK!

But, whatever...I don't care how bad the bible belt gets, its still my home, and i'm proud of it.

Michael Michigan

04-06-2005, 09:23 PM

Spoken like a true old fart.

I got that out of a fortune cookie.

I thought it fit quite nicely.

Cannibal

04-06-2005, 09:37 PM

Not to mention our basketball teams SUCK!

But, whatever...I don't care how bad the bible belt gets, its still my home, and i'm proud of it.

I've lived here for the last 22 years. We move here when I was 12. I consider it my home as well. But it's just too much now. It's fuking embarrassing to be a resident of this State these days.

Loki

04-06-2005, 09:49 PM

As the old die off, the young get old.

As that happens they mature and their opinions and values change.

As you age, this will be a lesson you will learn.

Simplex3

04-06-2005, 10:10 PM

Make sure your taxes are paid before you leave, have a nice day.
Like either of these sphincter-children actually rise above the poverty level. The sooner they leave the sooner they quit soaking up MY tax dollars.

Brock

04-06-2005, 11:29 PM

I've lived here for the last 22 years. We move here when I was 12. I consider it my home as well. But it's just too much now. It's fuking embarrassing to be a resident of this State these days.

Buh-bye. :thumb:

el borracho

04-07-2005, 12:06 AM

"We felt all along that Kansans would do the right thing, so we're not surprised how they voted," said the Rev. Joe Wright, senior pastor at Wichita's Central Christian Church and a leading proponent of the amendment.

"We are just thrilled with the overwhelming numbers."

Wright, part of a Christian conservative movement that began pushing for the amendment last year, said amendment supporters may now turn their attention to other issues such as gambling, evolution and abortion.

The Rev. Terry Fox, pastor of Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church and another leading supporter of the amendment, said the amendment has "taken it out of the hands of some liberal activist judge in the state of Kansas.

"I believe that God has created marriage," said Campbell, 41, a teacher and mother of three. "We are believers and go by how the Bible says things should be done."

"What it (the election) has done is it shows what can happen when all denominations, when the entire body of Christ comes together for a cause," Fox said.

hate wins again (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/11321672.htm)
Restricting the happiness of a minority group, even when that happiness would not affect the lives of those in the majority? What a victory for Jesus!

Frazod

04-07-2005, 12:10 AM

Kansas has one goal: to announce to the country that it is the most backwards, hate filled, flat earth loving, theocracy around. God bless the Mullahs!

Oklahoma will still give you run for your money. :D

ENDelt260

04-07-2005, 12:45 AM

Is it a burden being so much smarter than the other 70%?

Speaking as a person who's smart than at least 85% of the rest of the populace, I've gotta say the only burden is tolerating these retards.

ENDelt260

04-07-2005, 12:48 AM

FWIW, the misleading thread title upsets me. I really wanted to read a story about leeches.

Joe Seahawk

04-07-2005, 12:50 AM

FWIW, the misleading thread title upsets me. I really wanted to read a story about leeches.

Speaking as a person who's smart than at least 85% of the rest of the populace, I've gotta say the only burden is tolerating these retards.

I'm assuming you meant "smarter," right? ROFL

ENDelt260

04-07-2005, 01:39 AM

I'm assuming you meant "smarter," right? ROFL
Haha. Awesome.

Nightfyre

04-07-2005, 03:47 AM

It's okay. Ive come to realize that there is one fact to life:

People under the delusion of religious doctrine will always find someone else to oppress. After the homosexual thing blows over, the next generation will look back at what was done and be extremely sorry. While they proceed to haplessly persecute another group.

Nightfyre

04-07-2005, 03:49 AM

Don't count on it. That's the same tune the "pot will be legalized by the next generation" 60's hippies sang. Still not gonna' happen.

I'm 38 and will carry out the "values" you think will die off for as long as I live. The voting tendecies of everyone with whom I work run pretty true to form . I'd estimate around 70% hold traditional values. Same with the town in which I grew up. Same as most of the towns all over America.
Statistics say the majority of our children will end up with our values, the values with which they are raised.
Be sure to persecute any women you find along the way too. God knows they shouldnt be in the workforce.... :rolleyes:

Nightfyre

04-07-2005, 03:52 AM

The last time I checked, queers aren't very successful at getting each other pregnant.
No, I believe he was refering to the fact that education is a building trait, where one generation exceeds the last in it's speed of education. It has also been proven that the more educated one becomes, the more liberal one becomes. You would find this has a direct tie to the homosexuality issue. Therefore, people will become more accepting, and the issue will be resolved.

Nightfyre

04-07-2005, 03:52 AM

The slaughterhouse is open. You have no righteous argument you oppressive bastards. Be enlightened or be made fool of.

trndobrd

04-07-2005, 05:24 AM

No, I believe he was refering to the fact that education is a building trait, where one generation exceeds the last in it's speed of education. It has also been proven that the more educated one becomes, the more liberal one becomes. You would find this has a direct tie to the homosexuality issue. Therefore, people will become more accepting, and the issue will be resolved.

Where on earth did you come up with that? Care to provide some supporting documentation?

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 06:08 AM

Conservative Activist Pastors are no different than Liberal Activist Judges. They both have their own agenda to push on everyone. Why anybody gives these tools any amount of attention is beyond me.

I voted "no". I just don't see gay marriage as having any threat on the sanctity of marriage. Nevermind the fact that it was already fuggin illegal in Kansas for to gay people to marry anyway. But, let's not bring that up, right? My goodness, the Republican state legislature might actually have to work on real issues if it wasn't for those fungalputz Conservative Activist Pastors, Wright and Fox pushing their damn agenda.

Sedgwick County has a 70%, yes 70% divorce rate among it citizens. They are more of threat to the sanctity of marriage than any gay person I know. Why not just ban marriage altogether? Why isn't Pastor Wright and Fox out their screaming about that? Isn't divorce a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Why aren't they up in arms? Simple, because that doesn't line their pockets.

As far as moving out of the state. I have made my mind up about that long before this gay marriage issue came up. It is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when". I just don't see the state moving in a direction that I like and what I percieve what freedom for all actually should be. Is there anything wrong with that?

trndobrd

04-07-2005, 06:12 AM

Sedgwick County has a 70%, yes 70% divorce rate among it citizens. They are more of threat to the sanctity of marriage than any gay person I know. Why not just ban marriage altogether? Why isn't Pastor Wright and Fox out their screaming about that? Isn't divorce a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Why aren't they up in arms? Simple, because that doesn't line their pockets.

What if the divorce rate in Sedgwick Country drops over the next few years. You sure will be embarassed then, won't you.

:p

Cochise

04-07-2005, 06:17 AM

It has also been proven that the more educated one becomes, the more liberal one becomes.

Never let it be said that the planet is not a silly place.

alanm

04-07-2005, 06:20 AM

As the old die off, the young get old.

As that happens they mature and their opinions and values change.

As you age, this will be a lesson you will learn.
Forgive him, for he is young and quite the naive chap still. Plus rooting for Kansas State tends to skew ones outlook on life. ROFL

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 06:43 AM

What if the divorce rate in Sedgwick Country drops over the next few years. You sure will be embarassed then, won't you.

:p

Hopefully you could forward me the news, in the next lifetime. :)

trndobrd

04-07-2005, 06:43 AM

Never let it be said that the planet is not a silly place.

Sounds like mememe has found herself a young apprentice

:shake:

Cochise

04-07-2005, 06:48 AM

Sounds like mememe has found herself a young apprentice

:shake:

shh, haven't you heard of that 'speak of the devil' thing?

Lzen

04-07-2005, 09:06 AM

I voted "no". I just don't see gay marriage as having any threat on the sanctity of marriage. Nevermind the fact that it was already fuggin illegal in Kansas for to gay people to marry anyway. But, let's not bring that up, right? My goodness, the Republican state legislature might actually have to work on real issues if it wasn't for those fungalputz Conservative Activist Pastors, Wright and Fox pushing their damn agenda.

Same-sex marriage proponents have made surprising strides in getting a hearing for their radical marriage counterfeit. No society at any time has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families, yet these family revolutionaries only needed to convince four judges in Massachusetts and one lawless mayor in San Francisco to inflict their highly experimental ideas on the rest of us.

Link (http://family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/nac/a0031029.cfm)

Lzen

04-07-2005, 09:08 AM

civil rights = "pandering"

at least the Mullahs are articulate in Kansas

Civil rights? Bah, that's just rhetoric. I love how gay marriage proponents always try to compare it to the civil rights movement of blacks (and other minorities) in the 60s.

The same-sex marriage proponent’s slippery rhetoric would have us denounce most blacks as bigots. Or maybe African-Americans see this not as an issue of equality, but morality -- and very little morality at that. Jesse Jackson recently challenged the comparison that gay “marriage” is a civil rights issue by explaining that “gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” Is Jackson a bigot?

Link (http://family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/nac/a0031029.cfm)

Lzen

04-07-2005, 09:16 AM

Sedgwick County has a 70%, yes 70% divorce rate among it citizens. They are more of threat to the sanctity of marriage than any gay person I know. Why not just ban marriage altogether? Why isn't Pastor Wright and Fox out their screaming about that? Isn't divorce a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Why aren't they up in arms? Simple, because that doesn't line their pockets.

They do preach about divorce all the time. And your claim that their opposition to same sex marriage is all about $$ is idiot, quite frankly. Try this.

Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.

This is one of the major reasons. You give them that right and you end up taking away religious freedoms. There are many other reasons as well.

the Talking Can

04-07-2005, 09:58 AM

It's okay. Ive come to realize that there is one fact to life:

People under the delusion of religious doctrine will always find someone else to oppress. After the homosexual thing blows over, the next generation will look back at what was done and be extremely sorry. While they proceed to haplessly persecute another group.

bingo, rep, and ditto.....they have to have something to be afraid of no matter how stupid and pointless it really is...

the Talking Can

04-07-2005, 10:02 AM

Civil rights? Bah, that's just rhetoric. I love how gay marriage proponents always try to compare it to the civil rights movement of blacks (and other minorities) in the 60s.

Link (http://family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/nac/a0031029.cfm)

it is clearly an issue of civil rights...well, that an issue of homophobic christians, which is just another name for Kansas....

stevieray

04-07-2005, 10:05 AM

bingo, rep, and ditto.....they have to have something to be afraid of no matter how stupid and pointless it really is...

you just described the hippie mantra that has infested this country for forty years.

trndobrd

04-07-2005, 10:09 AM

bingo, rep, and ditto.....they have to have something to be afraid of no matter how stupid and pointless it really is...

....like the "vast right wing conspiracy"?

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 10:18 AM

They do preach about divorce all the time. And your claim that their opposition to same sex marriage is all about $$ is idiot, quite frankly. Try this.

This is one of the major reasons. You give them that right and you end up taking away religious freedoms. There are many other reasons as well.

Hooray for them. That $100,000 contribution from a out of state. donor sure didn't help the books, did it?

I don't even think your 2nd remark is even really worth my time commenting on. I can't help but notice the sheer size of these poor churches. That cross on Immanual Baptist Church is ridiculous. How big does the thing need to be for heavens sake. And a bowling alley? yeah, it isn't about money. Do me a favor, leave your morals, out of my life.

Where does it stop Lzen? Those fungalwarts have already stated that the amendment supporters can now turn their attention gambling, evolution and abortion. Well, excuse me from not letting you help me "save myself from sin". They can kiss my ass.

Duck Dog

04-07-2005, 10:23 AM

This is actually geting pretty funny to read. Thanks Nitefyre for the good laugh. ROFL

Brock

04-07-2005, 10:24 AM

Where does it stop Lzen? Those fungalwarts have already stated that the amendment supporters can now turn their attention gambling, evolution and abortion. Well, excuse me from not letting you help me "save myself from sin". They can kiss my ass.

I would guess if you put gambling and liquor sales on a ballot in Kansas, they'd both be legalized across the board. How people feel about homos and their seeking to hold minority status has nothing at all to do with anything else.

Lzen

04-07-2005, 10:28 AM

I would guess if you put gambling and liquor sales on a ballot in Kansas, they'd both be legalized across the board. How people feel about homos and their seeking to hold minority status has nothing at all to do with anything else.

Isn't that how we got them in the first place? On a ballot? But Saggy doesn't want to debate facts.

Lzen

04-07-2005, 10:37 AM

Hooray for them. That $100,000 contribution from a out of state. donor sure didn't help the books, did it?

I don't even think your 2nd remark is even really worth my time commenting on. I can't help but notice the sheer size of these poor churches. That cross on Immanual Baptist Church is ridiculous. How big does the thing need to be for heavens sake. And a bowling alley? yeah, it isn't about money. Do me a favor, leave your morals, out of my life.

Where does it stop Lzen? Those fungalwarts have already stated that the amendment supporters can now turn their attention gambling, evolution and abortion. Well, excuse me from not letting you help me "save myself from sin". They can kiss my ass.

Which part of allowing gays special rights infringes on my rights did you not understand?

Logical

04-07-2005, 10:41 AM

One thing I think is funny, is that the activists opposing what is the clear will of the people in 100% of the states given the chance to vote on it so far would tell you that your morals don't apply to them, but at the same time apply theirs to you by saying you are "wrong" for voting to approve "oppression" and "injustice".

So by this logic anyone who opposed the Nazis and the Holocaust in Germany was wrong because the majority supported it.:hmmm::shake:

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 10:45 AM

Isn't that how we got them in the first place? On a ballot? But Saggy doesn't want to debate facts.

Facts? You want facts. How about the fact they weren't allowed to marry in Kansas anyway. Yet we just had another waste of taxpayer money for group of people that hate, yes hate, the idea that not everyone chooses to live their lives arcording to the bible. Is it freedom for all or is it something else?

Logical

04-07-2005, 10:48 AM

As the old die off, the young get old.

As that happens they mature and their opinions and values change.

As you age, this will be a lesson you will learn.Actually on issues such as this I have become more tolerant and less bigoted as I have aged, when I was 20 I was as bad as many on this BB. I hope to see society change and it is, California always leads the way and this is the trend out here, much greater tolerance and understanding. The rest of the country will follow, just slowly. It almost always does.

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 10:49 AM

Which part of allowing gays special rights infringes on my rights did you not understand?

What part exactly does 2 gay people committed to one another that want to join in a civil union together violates your rights?

Logical

04-07-2005, 10:49 AM

Facts? You want facts. How about the fact they weren't allowed to marry in Kansas anyway. Yet we just had another waste of taxpayer money for group of people that hate, yes hate, the idea that not everyone chooses to live their lives arcording to the bible. Is it freedom for all or is it something else?:clap:

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 10:51 AM

There was good opinion line in todays Wichita Eagle.

Kansas: as bigoted as you think.

I had a good chuckle over that one.

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 10:58 AM

I would guess if you put gambling and liquor sales on a ballot in Kansas, they'd both be legalized across the board. How people feel about homos and their seeking to hold minority status has nothing at all to do with anything else.
I bet gambling would not pass. Liquor sales would, IMO.

Brock

04-07-2005, 11:05 AM

I bet gambling would not pass. Liquor sales would, IMO.

Are you kidding? There are casinos being built everywhere. It is too much money to every be voted down.

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 11:08 AM

Are you kidding? There are casinos being built everywhere. It is too much money to every be voted down.
I'm just not sure it would pass. I think it would be closer than the issue at hand. Every single person i've talked to here (In Topeka) says they voted "No", however i'm pretty sure ALL of western kansas voted "yes", and they would vote against legalizing gambling as well.

I'll just say it would be close.

Michael Michigan

04-07-2005, 11:40 AM

Actually on issues such as this I have become more tolerant and less bigoted as I have aged, when I was 20 I was as bad as many on this BB. I hope to see society change and it is, California always leads the way and this is the trend out here, much greater tolerance and understanding. The rest of the country will follow, just slowly. It almost always does.

Actually on issues such as this I have become more tolerant and less bigoted as I have aged, when I was 20 I was as bad as many on this BB. I hope to see society change and it is, California always leads the way and this is the trend out here, much greater tolerance and understanding. The rest of the country will follow, just slowly. It almost always does.

California Leads the Way? This is exactly what the majority of people in America reject at the polls time after time after time. If you want to sneak in a liberal left agenda you're going to have to be a lot smoother than that. Kalifornia has been outed as the nuthatchery of the country.
California leads the way. Please.

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 12:31 PM

Vlad? Liberal? ROFL

vailpass

04-07-2005, 12:35 PM

Vlad? Liberal? ROFL

I wasn't labeling the speaker but the words in one particular statment which I read to say that the nation will come to mirror the leftist political bent of California.
If I mis-read I do humbly aplogize.

Saggysack

04-07-2005, 12:36 PM

I wasn't labeling the speaker but the words in one particular statment which I read to say that the nation will come to mirror the leftist political bent of California.
If I mis-read I do humbly aplogize.

Oh. My bad.

the Talking Can

04-07-2005, 12:37 PM

group of people that hate, yes hate, the idea that not everyone chooses to live their lives arcording to the bible. Is it freedom for all or is it something else?

no, they want a theocracy just like the Mullahs....James Dobson makes no bones about it

Brock

04-07-2005, 12:38 PM

Funny how nobody around here threw a fit when California voted to ban gay marriage. But Kansas is "backward" when they do the same thing.

Lzen

04-07-2005, 12:52 PM

Facts? You want facts. How about the fact they weren't allowed to marry in Kansas anyway. Yet we just had another waste of taxpayer money for group of people that hate, yes hate, the idea that not everyone chooses to live their lives arcording to the bible. Is it freedom for all or is it something else?

Are you just not listening or do you choose to ignore? Despite laws being on the books, there are activists that are challenging these in the courts. We needed the amendment for this reason.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 01:00 PM

You'll be missed.

Thanks.

The feeling isn't mutual though.

Brock

04-07-2005, 01:02 PM

I am kinda curious about where you might be moving to. You know, where all the "enlightened" people live.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 01:05 PM

I am kinda curious about where you might be moving to. You know, where all the "enlightened" people live.

Haven't decided yet. But preferably a blue state. In the northeast or west coast.

But I'd settle for a larger midwest market that may lean to the right, but doesn't try to shove it's religion down my throat.

Brock

04-07-2005, 01:12 PM

I hope the increased crime and living expenses are worth it.

Lzen

04-07-2005, 01:16 PM

Marriage is always about the next generation...

o A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.

o A loving and compassionate society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families.

oThe same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults.

o No child development theory says children need two parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.

A vast social experiment inflicted upon children...

o No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families.

o Same-sex "marriage" will subject generations of children to the status of lab rats in a vast, untested social experiment. But we know how the experiment will turn out…

o All of the family experimentation over the past 30 years—no fault divorce, the sexual revolution, cohabitation, fatherlessness—have all been documented failures, harming adults and children in far deeper ways, for longer periods of time, than anyone ever imagined. Why do we think that this radical experiment will somehow bring good things?

How same-sex families will harm my family...

o Same-sex "marriage" advocates are not seeking marriage for themselves alone, but rather demanding me—and all of us—to radically change our understanding of family.

o If gay/lesbian families are portrayed as complete and natural, then my boys and girls will get the impression that mothers and fathers are merely optional. In effect, they've redefined family for me and my children.

o I will never allow my children to be taught that their gender doesn't matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone's.

The public purpose of marriage…

o Marriage is a common good, not a special interest.

o Every society needs natural marriage—as many men as possible each finding a woman, each man caring for and committing himself exclusively to her—working together to create and raise the next generation. Too little natural marriage is harmful to society.

o No society needs homosexual coupling. Same-sex "marriage" would be harmful to society. Natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal.

Full acceptance will be mandatory...

o Shortly after some Canadian provinces legalized same-sex "marriage," activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.

o Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex "marriage" and homosexuality are perfectly normal—Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in textbooks will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal.

o Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts—as happened in Massachusetts—find same-sex "marriage" to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor biblical marriage.

A civil rights issue...?

o There is no civil right to deny children their mothers or fathers, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.

o There is no civil right to conduct a vast, untested social experiment on children.

o It is an affront to blacks to say that being prevented from taking a drink from a public water fountain or being sprayed down by fire hoses was on par with laws preventing a man from marrying another man. The comparison is shameful.

o Civil rights leaders strongly reject this assertion that same-sex marriage is a civil-rights issue. Jesse Jackson explains, "Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution...and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote."2

Where does it stop...?

o If, as Andrew Sullivan says, "The right to marry whomever you want is a fundamental civil right," how do we say "no" to a woman who wants to become the third wife of a polygamist…?3

o How do we say no to grooms Jonathan Yarbrough (a bisexual) and Cody Rogahn (a homosexual)-the first same-sex couple in Provincetown, Mass., to receive a marriage application—who explained to the press "…it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case… we have an open marriage."

o When posed with the question "Why draw the line at two people?" same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques said, "Because I don't approve of that."5

…well, that brings an important question to mind:

How come your "because I don't approve of that" objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my "I don't approve of that" objection to same-sex "marriage"?

Allowing same-sex 'marriage' is like allowing interracial marriage...

o Racism was about keeping races apart and that is wrong. Marriage is about bringing the genders together and that is good.

o Striking down the ban on interracial marriage affirmed marriage by saying any man has a right to marry any woman. Same-sex "marriage" redefines marriage.

o Marriage has nothing to do with race. Marriage has everything to do with bringing men and women together to build a domestic life—creating and caring for the next generation.

o There are no negative child-development outcomes from being raised by interracial parents. There are thousands of social science studies showing negative outcomes for children who are denied their mothers and fathers.

o Sexual preference is not like skin color: The former is a behavior of choice, the latter is an unchangeable physical trait.

Link (http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0035624.cfm)

alanm

04-07-2005, 01:20 PM

Haven't decided yet. But preferably a blue state. In the northeast or west coast.

But I'd settle for a larger midwest market that may lean to the right, but doesn't try to shove it's religion down my throat.
I hear Canada has lovely mild winters.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 01:21 PM

I hear Canada has lovely mild winters.

You might want to move there then.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 01:24 PM

I hope the increased crime and living expenses are worth it.

I won't necessarily be living in LA or New York. But yeah, there probably will be some increased crime. I will try to live in the burbs, wherever I decide to relocate.

I've looked into the cost of living and there are a lot of cities with much more to offer, that have the same, or even less cost of living expenses as Wichita.

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 01:25 PM

Haven't decided yet. But preferably a blue state. In the northeast or west coast.

But I'd settle for a larger midwest market that may lean to the right, but doesn't try to shove it's religion down my throat.

It's not just Gay Marriage, which isn't a real big deal to me, it's also "Creationism" in schools, abortion, legislation of morality etc.

I'm sick of it.

Lzen

04-07-2005, 01:31 PM

It's not just Gay Marriage, which isn't a real big deal to me, it's also "Creationism" in schools, abortion, legislation of morality etc.

I'm sick of it.

Last I knew, the Theory Of Evolution is still being taught in Kansas schools and abortion is still legal. And to what legislation of morality are you referring?

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 01:34 PM

It's not just Gay Marriage, which isn't a real big deal to me, it's also "Creationism" in schools, abortion, legislation of morality etc.

I'm sick of it.

All issues that the country is dealing with as a whole lately. I doubt you're going to get away from it by simply moving. That being said, the debate is part of the process. I'd say you're better off being active for your cause than melting into another crowd of like-minders, but that's just me.

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 01:37 PM

Last I knew, the Theory Of Evolution is still being taught in Kansas schools and abortion is still legal. And to what legislation of morality are you referring?

Precisely what I was thinking as well. Methinks someone is overreacting. Course, I may have been away when the bible belt ghestapo came and converted all my neighbors.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 01:39 PM

Last I knew, the Theory Of Evolution is still being taught in Kansas schools and abortion is still legal. And to what legislation of morality are you referring?

The Kansas government is currently debating whether or not to teach Creationism in school. The fact that it's even up for discussion makes me want to puke.

Abortion, while legal is still an issue. 8 of 10 people in this state would probably love to see it outlawed in all cases.

Morality: Carlos Mayans recently enacted a ban on all new topless bars and porn shops. While I don't go to those places, I can't stand this putz trying to capitalize on the "evangelical" vote he saw Bush get. He didn't mention anything about the titty bars and porn shops until right after the election and the huge Christian turnout.

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 01:46 PM

The Kansas government is currently debating whether or not to teach Creationism in school. The fact that it's even up for discussion makes me want to puke.

Abortion, while legal is still an issue. 8 of 10 people in this state would probably love to see it outlawed in all cases.

Morality: Carlos Mayans recently enacted a ban on all new topless bars and porn shops. While I don't go to those places, I can't stand this putz trying to capitalize on the "evangelical" vote he saw Bush get. He didn't mention anything about the titty bars and porn shops until right after the election and the huge Christian turnout.

Creationism: Yes, of course, why question conventional wisdom? When did the theory of evolution become the law of evolution? Galileo, Columbus, Boyle, Newton, and Einstein might have something to say about your assumption.

Abortion: Can't help that your perception is probably wrong. Don't know how people's opinion of it is the equivalent of them "shoving their religion down your throat."

Morality: Since when do you expect politicians not to guide their policy by the finger in the wind test?

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 01:48 PM

I hope the increased crime and living expenses are worth it.
That all depends. Illinois is on par with Kansas as far as living expenses, and crime..well hell, Topeka has had the highest crime rate per capita at one point.

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 01:49 PM

The Kansas government is currently debating whether or not to teach Creationism in school. The fact that it's even up for discussion makes me want to puke.

Abortion, while legal is still an issue. 8 of 10 people in this state would probably love to see it outlawed in all cases.

Morality: Carlos Mayans recently enacted a ban on all new topless bars and porn shops. While I don't go to those places, I can't stand this putz trying to capitalize on the "evangelical" vote he saw Bush get. He didn't mention anything about the titty bars and porn shops until right after the election and the huge Christian turnout.
So, how many of these issues affect you directly?

I'm with you, sort of. I can't stand how conservative this state is, but it doesn't directly affect me, ever.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 01:50 PM

Creationism: Yes, of course, why question conventional wisdom? When did the theory of evolution become the law of evolution? Galileo, Columbus, Boyle, Newton, and Einstein might have something to say about your assumption.

Abortion: Can't help that your perception is probably wrong. Don't know how people's opinion of it is the equivalent of them "shoving their religion down your throat."

Morality: Since when do you expect politicians not to guide their policy by the finger in the wind test?

Creationism: I am not a Christian, I am not religious at all. I don't want the government to teach my kid (when I have one) religion. If I decide I want my kid to learn religion, I will send him to Sunday School.

Abortion: I am quite sure my perception closer to right than wrong. Do you live in KS, or Wichita?

Morality: True. But I still don't have to like it.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 01:54 PM

So, how many of these issues affect you directly?

I'm with you, sort of. I can't stand how conservative this state is, but it doesn't directly affect me, ever.

That is a good point.

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 01:57 PM

That is a good point.
Yep.

Gay marriage: Are you gay? Are you planning on getting married to a member of the same sex anytime soon? If no..this issue doesn't affect you, if it is not allowed.

Abortion: Its still legal.

Morality: Porn, titty bars, and gambling in certain areas are still legal. I don't see this changing anytime soon. When it does, you have a right to get pissed about it..if you use any of these services.

Education: Bitch about it when you have kids.

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 01:59 PM

Creationism: I am not a Christian, I am not religious at all. I don't want the government to teach my kid (when I have one) religion. If I decide I want my kid to learn religion, I will send him to Sunday School.

Abortion: I am quite sure my perception closer to right than wrong. Do you live in KS, or Wichita?

Morality: True. But I still don't have to like it.

Creationism: Intelligent design is not the equivalent of religion. There is scientific evidence for intelligent design just as there is for evolution. Should we not teach that both are possible? It's like teaching kids that 6+6=12, but 6x2 does not equal twelve because dammit, we said 6+6=12.

Abortion: I live on the Missouri side. Finding it odd to defend KS, though. Still don't see why my neighbor liking abortion forces me to like it as well.

Morality: That type of thing happens all the time for the aquisiton of political power. Sex industry is a funny thing, it's the only $5 billion/year industry with no customers. :)

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 02:04 PM

While I admit it currently doesn't directly affect me (although we'll probably be having a kid in the near future), it completely surrounds me.

I don't like it and I won't be staying.

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 02:07 PM

While I admit it currently doesn't directly affect me (although we'll probably be having a kid in the near future), it complete surrounds me.

I don't like it and I won't be staying.
Ah well..don't let the door hit ya on the ass on the way out. Truthfully, I find it fun being the liberal amongst many conservatives in this state. One of my greater joys was sticking it to the Phelps clan and making homosexuals a protected class (illegal to discriminate against), in this city.

KCN

04-07-2005, 02:09 PM

Sexual preference is not like skin color: The former is a behavior of choice, the latter is an unchangeable physical trait.

This one line discredits the rest of the opinion piece, which is nothing but empty talking points.

Cannibal

04-07-2005, 02:10 PM

Ah well..don't let the door hit ya on the ass on the way out. Truthfully, I find it fun being the liberal amongst many conservatives in this state. One of my greater joys was sticking it to the Phelps clan and making homosexuals a protected class (illegal to discriminate against), in this city.

More power to you. I used to feel kinda the same way. Now I'm just sick of it.

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 02:13 PM

This one line discredits the rest of the opinion piece, which is nothing but empty talking points.

So you've isolated the "gay gene?" If not, then that sentence you quoted is factually accurate.

KCN

04-07-2005, 02:16 PM

Wrong.

The only *fact* anyone here can provide is that KCN did not choose his sexual orientation.

Just because one cannot understand that doesn't make it untrue.

Brock

04-07-2005, 02:18 PM

Wrong.

The only *fact* anyone here can provide is that KCN did not choose his sexual orientation.

Just because one cannot understand that doesn't make it untrue.

I believe you, but I'm not sure it's a genetic trait.

Lzen

04-07-2005, 02:24 PM

Wrong.

The only *fact* anyone here can provide is that KCN did not choose his sexual orientation.

Just because one cannot understand that doesn't make it untrue.

Wrong. You choose who you want to sleep with. You could just as easily choose women. You just happen to choose men.

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 02:27 PM

Wrong.

The only *fact* anyone here can provide is that KCN did not choose his sexual orientation.

Just because one cannot understand that doesn't make it untrue.

Unfortunately, you're using anectodal evidence to create your reality. The quote that you used was factually correct. Sexual preference is a behavior, unlike skin pigmentation, which is genetically decoded. Doesn't mean we should or shouldn't endorse gay marriage.

Just because you can't understand your choice/situation does not mean it's genetically coded, either. Scientists have now mapped the entire human genome and found no such link, despite billions spent to do just that.

FWIW, I don't care about your preference, and I hope you're comfortable in your skin. People make a lot of decisions that seemingly don't make sense to themselves, or others, and it has nothing to do with genetics.

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 02:27 PM

Wrong. You choose who you want to sleep with. You could just as easily choose women. You just happen to choose men.
Are you saying you could "just as easily" choose men? I know I could not.

I'm not saying its a gene, but its not as cut and dry as a "choice". Some people go through hell trying to not "be gay".

Lzen

04-07-2005, 02:28 PM

Ah well..don't let the door hit ya on the ass on the way out. Truthfully, I find it fun being the liberal amongst many conservatives in this state. One of my greater joys was sticking it to the Phelps clan and making homosexuals a protected class (illegal to discriminate against), in this city.

Heh, I have my own perspective on the Phelps cult. They did do a good thing, IMO in bringing up that vote in the primaries. Too bad that their reputation is so bad (and rightfully so) that a lot of people voted against it simply because everyone hates the Phelps clan.

I agree with their message that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. But what they are doing is false prophetizing, IMO. God hates the sin, not the sinners. We are all His children, even homosexuals. He just wants to touch their hearts and have them change their lifestyle. Phelps only spreads hatred. I'm sure when the Reverend Phelps is judged, he'll be in for a rude awakening.

KCN

04-07-2005, 02:28 PM

I believe you, but I'm not sure it's a genetic trait.

I'm not going to claim it is either. My area of expertise is atmospheric sciences, not genetics.

But I will provide you with the facts that 1) my earliest homosexual feelings came at an age no older than 7, possibly as early as 5....and 2) I have never had sexual feelings toward the opposite sex no matter how hard I tried to force it. Those are undeniable facts, unless one chooses not to believe me (and I think my posting record on here is propaganda-free enough).

Also, my upbringing was very loving and undisturbed. Always had a fully supportive mother and father who demonstrated to me the importance of family. Not through empty words, but through the way they raised my sister and me. You cannot get more supportive than the family I was given....yet this upbringing didn't prevent me from being gay. It did, however, make me want to continue what they gave me through a family of my own.

Lzen

04-07-2005, 02:31 PM

Are you saying you could "just as easily" choose men? I know I could not.

I'm not saying its a gene, but its not as cut and dry as a "choice". Some people go through hell trying to not "be gay".

That's an interesting take. I guess I couldn't just as easily choose men. As a matter of fact, there's no way on Earth you could make me do that. Maybe I worded that wrong. In any case, I don't believe it's been proven that it's genetic. IMO, it's a choice. That "interest" may have started from some life changing event (such as molestation or parents who watch porn with kids around) but it is not natural.

KCN

04-07-2005, 02:32 PM

Unfortunately, you're using anectodal evidence to create your reality. The quote that you used was factually correct. Sexual preference is a behavior, unlike skin pigmentation, which is genetically decoded. Doesn't mean we should or shouldn't endorse gay marriage.

Just because you can't understand your choice/situation does not mean it's genetically coded, either. Scientists have now mapped the entire human genome and found no such link, despite billions spent to do just that.

FWIW, I don't care about your preference, and I hope you're comfortable in your skin. People make a lot of decisions that seemingly don't make sense to themselves, or others, and it has nothing to do with genetics.

I'm not claiming it's genetic. All I'm claiming is that whatever the reason is, it led to the circumstances described in my post above. And I *do* understand my situation.....give me credit for knowing what I do and do not choose to do please.

Mark M

04-07-2005, 02:32 PM

Sexual preference is a behavior, unlike skin pigmentation, which is genetically decoded.

Actually, there is no proof of that either way.

Until the entire human genome is decoded (which should happen in about another 3 lifetimes), no one can say with 100% cetainty that it is or is not.

MM
~~:shrug:

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 02:34 PM

That's an interesting take. I guess I couldn't just as easily choose men. As a matter of fact, there's no way on Earth you could make me do that. Maybe I worded that wrong. In any case, I don't believe it's been proven that it's genetic. IMO, it's a choice. That "interest" may have started from some life changing event (such as molestation or parents who watch porn with kids around) but it is not natural.
I don't think its genetic, but I don't think its a choice. Its a "behavior". However, its not a behavior that has a negative affect on others, IMO.

Soupnazi

04-07-2005, 02:42 PM

I'm not claiming it's genetic. All I'm claiming is that whatever the reason is, it led to the circumstances described in my post above. And I *do* understand my situation.....give me credit for knowing what I do and do not choose to do please.

My objection was simply to the inferrence that being gay was genetic the same as skin color. Strangely enough, one of my best friends in the entire world is very similar to what you've described. It's tragic to me because he's truly one of the greatest people I've ever met, and would make an awesome dad if it weren't for his preference.

As far as you choosing or not choosing to do, I'm not sure what you mean, but take no offense. It wasn't meant to.

KCN

04-07-2005, 02:48 PM

^ That statement was responding to the general attitude that one knows how I became gay better than I do....as if I did choose to be so but don't realize it (which would require me to be insanely stupid). Sorry if that's not what you were implying.

stevieray

04-07-2005, 04:25 PM

[QUOTE=Saulbadguy]So, how many of these issues affect you directly?

QUOTE]

how does a woman being raped affect you directly?

Mark M

04-07-2005, 04:29 PM

how does a woman being raped affect you directly?
"What does a sebling farting on Orion 7 have to do with the tides on Neptune?"

MM
~~:spock:

stevieray

04-07-2005, 04:30 PM

"What does a sebling farting on Orion 7 have to do with the tides on Neptune?"

MM
~~:spock:

does a woman being raped affect you directly, Mark?

KCWolfman

04-07-2005, 04:52 PM

Are you saying you could "just as easily" choose men? I know I could not.

I'm not saying its a gene, but its not as cut and dry as a "choice". Some people go through hell trying to not "be gay".

There is no way on heaven or earth I would ever choose to eat collard greens, yet my entire family likes them. There is no way most of my family would choose to eat grits, yet I love them. But there is no proof whatsoever that my choice to dodge the greens and eat the grits is genetic in anyway whatsoever.

While I am sure that KCN is 100% honest in his assessment and there are others like him, every gay I have spoken with regarding the topic has some huge sexual hangup due mainly to oppression or sexual attack by predators - including my own sister.

Honestly, no insult intended to the gay crowd, I see nothing that leads me to believe that being gay is simply a mental condition no different than people who like to be spanked, people who can't get off without thinking of a relative, or simply people who are obsessive compulsives. Do I hold hatred for them or prejudice? Nope, no more than I would toward an agoraphobic or someone with a neurotic disorder. Do I believe they need to be catered to due to their mental condition? Nope, no more than I believe an agoraphobic or someone with a neurotic disorder.

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 05:06 PM

Honestly, no insult intended to the gay crowd, I see nothing that leads me to believe that being gay is simply a mental condition no different than people who like to be spanked, people who can't get off without thinking of a relative, or simply people who are obsessive compulsives. Do I hold hatred for them or prejudice? Nope, no more than I would toward an agoraphobic or someone with a neurotic disorder. Do I believe they need to be catered to due to their mental condition? Nope, no more than I believe an agoraphobic or someone with a neurotic disorder.
That is a very interesting way of putting it. I'll have to think about that.

KCN

04-07-2005, 05:28 PM

While I am sure that KCN is 100% honest in his assessment and there are others like him, every gay I have spoken with regarding the topic has some huge sexual hangup due mainly to oppression or sexual attack by predators - including my own sister.

If I may say....I likely know a lot more gay persons than you...and very few have a past like this. I've never had anything even remotely close happen to me. Thankfully.

KCWolfman

04-07-2005, 05:33 PM

If I may say....I likely know a lot more gay persons than you...and very few have a past like this. I've never had anything even remotely close happen to me. Thankfully.

You probably do, of that I have no doubt. However, the lesbians who were friends with my sister and lived with me, their friends, and my sisters friends were all molested or raped. While a poll of "who you know" is hardly conclusive, it is a reason to start to build a mindset.

Factor in the fact that many obsessive compulsives, gatophobiacs, and other people with neurotic disorders have no direct reason for their mental condition as well, it is not difficult to arrive at my conclusion.

KCN

04-07-2005, 05:40 PM

Wrong. You choose who you want to sleep with. You could just as easily choose women. You just happen to choose men.

I just saw this.

We are not discussing who people choose to sleep with. We are discussing who people are attracted to.

KCN

04-07-2005, 05:41 PM

You probably do, of that I have no doubt. However, the lesbians who were friends with my sister and lived with me, their friends, and my sisters friends were all molested or raped. While a poll of "who you know" is hardly conclusive, it is a reason to start to build a mindset.

At what age were they molested?

KCWolfman

04-07-2005, 05:42 PM

At what age were they molested?

A variety, most of them prior to a decade, some after.

KCN

04-07-2005, 05:51 PM

I'd be interested to see if they had any lesbian feelings before those unfortunate incidents.

I'm not denying that that could be a cause for it, I don't know them. But seeing as the majority of rape victims are women, and the majority of homosexuals are men, it doesn't completely add up to me....especially given the people I know. Also, being molested wouldn't seem to make someone act like the opposite gender like many gays do.

Demonpenz

04-07-2005, 05:52 PM

are we catering for them? Or offering equal rights

KCWolfman

04-07-2005, 06:12 PM

are we catering for them? Or offering equal rights

Equal rights for what? They can marry, just as I can. I can't marry a man, just as a homosexual man can't. I see nothing about equal rights at all.

Are you stating we should start allowing those who are obsessive compulsives to come to work an hour later and pay them for that hour as they need to wash their hands 27 times and lock their doors 32 times before they leave for the office? After all, they are working hard to get to work and feel they should be recompensated for it as an equal right.

KCWolfman

04-07-2005, 06:14 PM

I'd be interested to see if they had any lesbian feelings before those unfortunate incidents.

I'm not denying that that could be a cause for it, I don't know them. But seeing as the majority of rape victims are women, and the majority of homosexuals are men, it doesn't completely add up to me....especially given the people I know. Also, being molested wouldn't seem to make someone act like the opposite gender like many gays do.

The reason for the attraction does not have to be logical and linear after a sexual assualt. Using your logic, one must assume that a cutter has had someone continually healing their skin until it drives them to do the opposite.

Baby Lee

04-07-2005, 07:09 PM

This one line discredits the rest of the opinion piece, which is nothing but empty talking points.
Setting aside the issue of nature/nurture, surely you can see that observing the difference between a trait and a preference is valid.

While it might not be fun or fulfilling, you can through mere mental resolve, refrain from sexual behavior, be it homo or hetero. Michael Jackson aside, there ain't be a black person yet who has willed their skin tone away.

Logical

04-07-2005, 07:58 PM

So you've isolated the "gay gene?" If not, then that sentence you quoted is factually accurate.
Sorry, but to be a fact you have to be able to prove it. You cannot either prove or disprove that being gay is a choice. I do not believe you can find a credible scientist that will claim as fact either side of the issue. It is like saying being left handed is a choice, you cannot find a left handed gene, but there is no denying a certain percentage of the population is predisposed to being left handed. For them the choice would be to do the unnatural thing and attempt to be right handed.

Logical

04-07-2005, 08:00 PM

Setting aside the issue of nature/nurture, surely you can see that observing the difference between a trait and a preference is valid.

While it might not be fun or fulfilling, you can through mere mental resolve, refrain from sexual behavior, be it homo or hetero. Michael Jackson aside, there ain't be a black person yet who has willed their skin tone away.

I find it strange that you use the perfect refutation for your own argument Michael Jackson. What he did is definitely not natural but it proves it can be done. IMO that does not make it a choice anymore than being homosexual is a choice.

go bowe

04-07-2005, 08:15 PM

Sorry, but to be a fact you have to be able to prove it. You cannot either prove or disprove that being gay is a choice. I do not believe you can find a credible scientist that will claim as fact either side of the issue. It is like saying being left handed is a choice, you cannot find a left handed gene, but there is no denying a certain percentage of the population is predisposed to being left handed. For them the choice would be to do the unnatural thing and attempt to be right handed.good heavens...

so, if i'm left handed, that means i'm unnatural?

OR

if there's no gene to explain it, that means i must have chosen to be left handed?

(sorry, just thought i'd twist what you said a little...)

KCN

04-07-2005, 08:18 PM

Setting aside the issue of nature/nurture, surely you can see that observing the difference between a trait and a preference is valid.

While it might not be fun or fulfilling, you can through mere mental resolve, refrain from sexual behavior, be it homo or hetero. Michael Jackson aside, there ain't be a black person yet who has willed their skin tone away.

You cannot refrain from being attracted to someone, nor force attraction to someone else.

Logical

04-07-2005, 08:59 PM

good heavens...

so, if i'm left handed, that means i'm unnatural?

OR

if there's no gene to explain it, that means i must have chosen to be left handed?

(sorry, just thought i'd twist what you said a little...)

Actually if people really think about it you have emphasized my point.

You like a Homosexual are neither unnatural or chose to be left handed

go bowe

04-07-2005, 10:01 PM

Actually if people really think about it you have emphasized my point.

You like a Homosexual are neither unnatural or chose to be left handed:D

KCWolfman

04-07-2005, 10:04 PM

Actually if people really think about it you have emphasized my point.

You like a Homosexual are neither unnatural or chose to be left handed

Based upon what fact?

Saulbadguy

04-07-2005, 10:05 PM

Being left/right handed has nothing to do with that. IMO.

stevieray

04-07-2005, 11:10 PM

No one can prove you're gay until you engage in a homosexual act.

Thinking about making love to another mans wife doesn't make you an adulterer.

Boozer

04-07-2005, 11:12 PM

Thinking about making love to another mans wife doesn't make you an adulterer.

That's not what Jesus said.

stevieray

04-07-2005, 11:18 PM

That's not what Jesus said.

True, Jesus did say the thought was the same as the act, but in what context? literally or figuratively?

I think Jesus meant to keep your heart pure, and free from temptation.

Thinking about killing a man and actually doing it are two very different things. so are both a sin? probably. do both make you a murderer? only if you choose to act?

Nightfyre

04-08-2005, 03:36 AM

On what logical base can you even argue that homosexuality should be illegalized? Can you prove that its not something a homosexual is born with? Why should YOU be able to restrict THEIR personal freedoms?

trndobrd

04-08-2005, 04:44 AM

On what logical base can you even argue that homosexuality should be illegalized? Can you prove that its not something a homosexual is born with? Why should YOU be able to restrict THEIR personal freedoms?

Who suggested that homosexual behavior should be illegal. Did I skip a post?

Saggysack

04-08-2005, 06:51 AM

Are you just not listening or do you choose to ignore? Despite laws being on the books, there are activists that are challenging these in the courts. We needed the amendment for this reason.

WTF are you talking about. Are you pulling crap out of your poopchute? There are no activists challenging the law banning gay marriage in Kansas. No pro-gay marriage group has ever challenged the law in Kansas, ever.

Now, maybe you can tell me where these so-called activists are in Kansas challenging the law that was already on the books. I'll be waiting.

Now do the Christian thing and tell the truth. Where are these activists in Kansas and when have they ever challenged the law that is already on the books?

The only activists in Kansas are the religious holier than thou activists trying to tell the rest of the population how to run their own damn lives.

Baby Lee

04-08-2005, 07:24 AM

I find it strange that you use the perfect refutation for your own argument Michael Jackson. What he did is definitely not natural but it proves it can be done. IMO that does not make it a choice anymore than being homosexual is a choice.
It was a f#cking mood lightening reference. However Michael came by his present skin tone, it wasn't force of will.

Baby Lee

04-08-2005, 07:29 AM

You cannot refrain from being attracted to someone, nor force attraction to someone else.
Might want to think about how that position reflects on the inexorability and purity of pedophilia and incest.

Mark M

04-08-2005, 08:14 AM

does a woman being raped affect you directly, Mark?

As soon as you can tell me how that has anything to do with homosexual marriage, I'll be glad to answer.

MM
~~:)

stevieray

04-08-2005, 09:40 AM

As soon as you can tell me how that has anything to do with homosexual marriage, I'll be glad to answer.

MM
~~:)

As soonas you can tell me what putting your reproductive organ in someone's rectum has to do with marriage.

Mark M

04-08-2005, 09:51 AM

As soonas you can tell me what putting your reproductive organ in someone's rectum has to do with marriage.
Last I checked, the placement of reproductive organs had nothing to do with marriage. Single people place them places all the time, and married people place them nowhere quite often.

Or do you believe that the only reason for marriage is reproduction? (If you do, that's all good. Just wondering.)

Besides, since when was it the role of govenment to tell consenting adults where they can place their reproductive organs?

Please note the "consenting adults" part of that before you or someone else tries to make some wildly off base and inaccurate analogy ...

huh ... I just typed analogy.

MM
~~:)

Brock

04-08-2005, 09:53 AM

Gah. It's the return of gayplanet. :shake:

Baby Lee

04-08-2005, 09:57 AM

Besides, since when was it the role of govenment to tell consenting adults where they can place their reproductive organs?
Irelevant. The issue is what goodies you get for professing a commited relationship with another person.

stevieray

04-08-2005, 09:58 AM

Besides, since when was it the role of govenment to tell consenting adults where they can place their reproductive organs?

MM
~~:)

government isn't telling them they can't, just that it doesn't have anything to do with marriage.....as you stated in your opening reply.

stevieray

04-08-2005, 10:00 AM

Irelevant. The issue is what goodies you get for professing a commited relationship with another person.

I'm really close to my aunt Marty, maybe I deserve the financial benefits of this relationship.

Mark M

04-08-2005, 10:12 AM

Irelevant. The issue is what goodies you get for professing a commited relationship with another person.

I'm well aware of that, and I'm not the one who brought it up.

government isn't telling them they can't, just that it doesn't have anything to do with marriage.....as you stated in your opening reply.

If where someone puts their organ doesn't matter, why did you infer that it does?

As soonas you can tell me what putting your reproductive organ in someone's rectum has to do with marriage.
From that comment, all I can infer is that you believe that placement of sexual organs is what makes a marriage. Maybe I just don't understand exactly what you're getting at. Apparently, you agree with me that how someone has sex has nothing to do with marriage. If that's the case, why did you bring it up?

:spock:

Listen, I've posted it once and I'll post it again: If people want to save the word "marriage" for male/female relationships, fine. Let gays have "civil unions" or whatever, and don't force churches that disagree with the practice to marry male/male or female/female couples. It's all semantics, but whatever works.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with being raped, and I still can't figure out what the heck your point was with that statement.

MM
~~:shrug:

Mark M

04-08-2005, 10:13 AM

I'm really close to my aunt Marty, maybe I deserve the financial benefits of this relationship.

Only if you live in Alabama ...

MM
~~;)

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:15 AM

Kansas has one goal: to announce to the country that it is the most backwards, hate filled, flat earth loving, theocracy around. God bless the Mullahs!

hate wins again (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/11321672.htm)

Ya know TC, I enjoy your posts over in the Lounge, and the rest of the forum....but over here, you've become a male version of Duhnise. Get a grip. :shake:

Mark M

04-08-2005, 10:18 AM

Ya know TC, I enjoy your posts over in the Lounge, and the rest of the forum....but over here, you've become a male version of Duhnise. Get a grip. :shake:

I agree that is a bit much.

Also, doctors are again using leeches to help bring blood to certain areas of the body. They've found it's a great way to help those recovering from, say, a surgery to replace a severed finger.

MM
~~:)

Baby Lee

04-08-2005, 10:21 AM

From that comment, all I can infer is that you believe that placement of sexual organs is what makes a marriage. Maybe I just don't understand exactly what you're getting at. Apparently, you agree with me that how someone has sex has nothing to do with marriage. If that's the case, why did you bring it up?
Please, I'm pimping my post, but I would sincerely like some input here;

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=113457

This sub-discussion of 'what makes a marriage' is meted out in drips and drabs, usually in the form of sarcasm or pique. I'm wanting to drive forward a discussion of substance on the matter, to the extent possible.

Mark M

04-08-2005, 10:27 AM

Please, I'm pimping my post, but I would sincerely like some input here;

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=113457

This sub-discussion of 'what makes a marriage' is meted out in drips and drabs, usually in the form of sarcasm or pique. I'm wanting to drive forward a discussion of substance on the matter, to the extent possible.

I will post my thoughts on that thread a bit later—busy at work, so I'm not dodging anything.

MM
~~:thumb:

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:28 AM

What is that? 18 out of 18 states now where it's passed with an overwhelming majority?

Yeah, but Kansas is real EXTREME....don't you know? I wonder what TC will say when another 10-20 states adopt similar legislation. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:29 AM

....Is it a burden being so much smarter than the other 70%?

Excellent point....heh. ROFL

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:30 AM

Of the voting public, indeed. It'll change. The old folk will die off, and so will their "values". Thats the main reason i'm not worried about it.

History has proven you wrong, again and again. People become more conservative once they have kids, and have real jobs and lives. The hippies were SURE marijuana would be legalized before 1980-1985....they are still waiting.

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:34 AM

Yes.

Self-righteous arrogant isn't the exclusive province of the religious right afterall. :hmmm:

Baby Lee

04-08-2005, 10:36 AM

I will post my thoughts on that thread a bit later—busy at work, so I'm not dodging anything.

MM
~~:thumb:
Thoughts other than on the hearsay rule. ;)

Mark M

04-08-2005, 10:38 AM

Thoughts other than on the hearsay rule. ;)
Yeah, I learned my lesson on that one.

http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/Owned-BabyScribble.jpg

That would be you with the marker ...

MM
~~:D

Baby Lee

04-08-2005, 10:42 AM

Yeah, I learned my lesson on that one.

http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/Owned-BabyScribble.jpg

That would be you with the marker ...

MM
~~:D
Awww, and me and my favorite pink jammie bottoms. ROFL ROFL

the Talking Can

04-08-2005, 11:10 AM

Ya know TC, I enjoy your posts over in the Lounge, and the rest of the forum....but over here, you've become a male version of Duhnise. Get a grip. :shake:

god lord, take your diapers off and spare me the patronizing...by your standard anyone who isn't you is denise...brilliant, at least you've got a finely honed sense of perspective

the Talking Can

04-08-2005, 11:12 AM

History has proven you wrong, again and again. People become more conservative once they have kids, and have real jobs and lives. The hippies were SURE marijuana would be legalized before 1980-1985....they are still waiting.

slavery, women's suffrage, child labor, etc ad infinitum...clearly you and History have never met....

vailpass

04-08-2005, 12:05 PM

slavery, women's suffrage, child labor, etc ad infinitum...clearly you and History have never met....

Are you equating the social importance of homosexual marriage with slavery, suffrage, and child labor?
Clearly you and the majority public opinion have never met.

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 12:06 PM

slavery, women's suffrage, child labor, etc ad infinitum...clearly you and History have never met....

If you wish to equate those with a deviant lifestyle, go right ahead. I won't join you though.

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 12:07 PM

Are you equating the social importance of homosexual marriage with slavery, suffrage, and child labor?
Clearly you and the majority public opinion have never met.

Heh. Yeah, apparently.

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 12:11 PM

god lord, take your diapers off and spare me the patronizing...by your standard anyone who isn't you is denise...brilliant, at least you've got a finely honed sense of perspective

You sell yourself short. You've joined an elite group, alongside a small hand full of other radical leftists who make Marx appear moderate. I can't remember another male (maybe a troll or two, that have since been banned) I've compared to Duhnise... :)

memyselfI

04-08-2005, 01:41 PM

Yeah, but Kansas is real EXTREME....don't you know? I wonder what TC will say when another 10-20 states adopt similar legislation. :rolleyes:

FYI, the language in the legislation actually IS extreme in that it has the potential to put civil unions and other legal agreements in jeopardy. Which is why one self professed conservative I work with voted against it...

Cochise

04-08-2005, 02:01 PM

FYI, the language in the legislation actually IS extreme in that it has the potential to put civil unions and other legal agreements in jeopardy. Which is why one self professed conservative I work with voted against it...

ROFL

I like how you pull the usual "well someone _I_ know didn't vote for it" even though it passed in a huge landslide just like in any other state...

vailpass

04-08-2005, 02:10 PM

FYI, the language in the legislation actually IS extreme in that it has the potential to put civil unions and other legal agreements in jeopardy. Which is why one self professed conservative I work with voted against it...

Kotter, this is your fault.

memyselfI

04-08-2005, 02:11 PM

ROFL

I like how you pull the usual "well someone _I_ know didn't vote for it" even though it passed in a huge landslide just like in any other state...

Of course it did, the RWNJ churches and their lambs in the area were swimming in Kool-Aid. Not to mention all the funding from Focus on The Family and other out of state NJ groups.

Nightfyre

04-08-2005, 03:15 PM

Why should homosexual marriage be banned? GIVE ME A REASON! You are sheep following BASELESS religious doctrine, and then trying to force that doctrine on others. YOU MAKE ME SICK. You can keep your religion out of MY government.

vailpass

04-08-2005, 03:16 PM

Of course it did, the RWNJ churches and their lambs in the area were swimming in Kool-Aid. Not to mention all the funding from Focus on The Family and other out of state NJ groups.

KOTTER! Youve really done it this time! I'll have you and your sweathogs out of this school by the end of the day!

Brock

04-08-2005, 03:18 PM

Why should homosexual marriage be banned? GIVE ME A REASON! You are sheep following BASELESS religious doctrine, and then trying to force that doctrine on others. YOU MAKE ME SICK. You can keep your religion out of MY government.

Nobody forced anything on anybody. It was put to a vote.

Nightfyre

04-08-2005, 03:21 PM

Nobody forced anything on anybody. It was put to a vote.
So was slavery you NINNY. the Majority is oppressing the minority. Pull your peasized head out of your ass.

Brock

04-08-2005, 03:22 PM

So was slavery you NINNY. the Majority is oppressing the minority. Pull your peasized head out of your ass.

Wow, you're really angry. Sorry about that. ROFL

HC_Chief

04-08-2005, 03:23 PM

So was slavery you NINNY. the Majority is oppressing the minority. Pull your peasized head out of your ass.

You actually are trying to equate a ban on gay marriage with slavery? You really want to go there?

:spock:

Brock

04-08-2005, 03:24 PM

You actually are trying to equate a ban on gay marriage with slavery? You really want to go there?

:spock:

That seems to be the only argument they can come up with. The poor, oppressed quasi-minority argument. If I was black, I'd be offended.

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 03:26 PM

Kotter, this is your fault.

I drew her out; I'm sorry. :shake:

I seem to have that affect on her; if I were an Al Queada member she'd be stalking me.... :(

Nightfyre

04-08-2005, 03:26 PM

You actually are trying to equate a ban on gay marriage with slavery? You really want to go there?

:spock:
Its the same principle: Oppression of a minority by the majority.

Nightfyre

04-08-2005, 03:28 PM

That seems to be the only argument they can come up with. The poor, oppressed quasi-minority argument. If I was black, I'd be offended.
And what kind of legitimate argument have the pro-ban people come up with? The bible says so?

HC_Chief

04-08-2005, 03:29 PM

Its the same principle: Oppression of a minority by the majority.

No, it is not.
In a free election, a majority selected an option. That option does not "oppress" anyone.

It's called democracy.... self-governance. I know you Marcists hate it, but you should at least understand the principles if you want to discuss w/ the adult crowd.

Mark M

04-08-2005, 03:59 PM

Totally, 100%, hypothetical questions:

What if there was a vote to make a state constitutional ammendment to ban, say, marraige between those of a certain religion? Just for the sake of argument, say Jewish (although it could be Hindi or Muslim).

They are a "minority" that chooses their "lifestyle," are they not?

What if a majority of people thought that it was not a positive lifestyle?

Not trying to be anti-semitic or anything, nor is this going to turn into a holocaust discussion (at least I hope it doesn't).

I just wanted to throw it out there and see what people thought.

MM
~~:hmmm:

Brock

04-08-2005, 03:59 PM

And what kind of legitimate argument have the pro-ban people come up with? The bible says so?

Apparently, we don't want it going on in our state. Just like about 20 other states that said the same thing. Sorry you don't like it.

Soupnazi

04-08-2005, 03:59 PM

I like how on this issue, if prior precedent is upheld it's "bible thumpers forcing it down their throat." While if centuries of tradition are overturned and policy is created that 70% of the population disagrees with, that does not meet the same definition. Some of you people are lunatics with the victim card.

Mark M

04-08-2005, 04:01 PM

I like how on this issue, if prior precedent is upheld it's "bible thumpers forcing it down their throat." While if centuries of tradition are overturned and policy is created that 70% of the population disagrees with, that does not meet the same definition. Some of you people are lunatics with the victim card.

And if any judge throws out the laws some you lunatics will pull the "activist judges" card.

MM
~~;) :p :D

vailpass

04-08-2005, 04:10 PM

Totally, 100%, hypothetical questions:

What if there was a vote to make a state constitutional ammendment to ban, say, marraige between those of a certain religion? Just for the sake of argument, say Jewish (although it could be Hindi or Muslim).

They are a "minority" that chooses their "lifestyle," are they not?

What if a majority of people thought that it was not a positive lifestyle?

Not trying to be anti-semitic or anything, nor is this going to turn into a holocaust discussion (at least I hope it doesn't).

I just wanted to throw it out there and see what people thought.

MM
~~:hmmm:

Aren't there Constitutional issues with respect to the religious aspect of your hypothetical? I'm no con-law expert, just asking,

Cochise

04-08-2005, 04:11 PM

And what kind of legitimate argument have the pro-ban people come up with? The bible says so?

Are you saying the gay marriage ban is immoral? So you admit it's just your morals against the morals of 70% of Kansas?

Cochise

04-08-2005, 04:13 PM

Apparently, we don't want it going on in our state. Just like about 20 other states that said the same thing. Sorry you don't like it.

On the bright side for him, there is always the option to GTFO and go to a state that recognizes ghey marriages.

KCWolfman

04-08-2005, 05:44 PM

Why should homosexual marriage be banned? GIVE ME A REASON! You are sheep following BASELESS religious doctrine, and then trying to force that doctrine on others. YOU MAKE ME SICK. You can keep your religion out of MY government.

If we make you sick, I suggest going elsewhere for a relevant conversation. Your mind is as closed as those you are railing against.

IMO, there is no reason to create a recognized relationship for a couple suffering from a simple mental aberration.

There is no "religion" involved in the law itself, in any of the 18 states whose majority have requested the act. That is merely a crutch used by extremists such as yourself who have no better argument.

KCWolfman

04-08-2005, 05:46 PM

You actually are trying to equate a ban on gay marriage with slavery? You really want to go there?

:spock:

Slaves had no rights whatsoever, blacks prior to 1964 had no rights whatsoever. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. As a heterosexual, I cannot marry another man either. There is no loss of rights except in your own mind.

Logical

04-08-2005, 07:08 PM

...As a heterosexual, I cannot marry another man either. There is no loss of rights except in your own mind.

This is literally LOL funny it is so stupid. I cannot believe you actually posted it. Maybe you meant to be funny. I hope so.

KCWolfman

04-08-2005, 07:50 PM

This is literally LOL funny it is so stupid. I cannot believe you actually posted it. Maybe you meant to be funny. I hope so.

Thanks for the input. Considering you dodged my other question, I thought I was on ignore for a moment.

Again, what fact do you base your supposition that homosexual attraction is uncontrollable or is that merely your opinion?

Baby Lee

04-08-2005, 08:16 PM

This is literally LOL funny it is so stupid. I cannot believe you actually posted it. Maybe you meant to be funny. I hope so.
Derrr, dat's stoo-pid.

Not since Lincoln faced Douglass has this nation witnessed such incisive analysis.

Logical

04-08-2005, 08:29 PM

Thanks for the input. Considering you dodged my other question, I thought I was on ignore for a moment.

Again, what fact do you base your supposition that homosexual attraction is uncontrollable or is that merely your opinion?

If you go back you will find that I said that there are no facts to either prove it is controllable or it is not. I had merely assumed you had missed that post and would eventually get around to it. I was not trying to avoid your question. If you need me to I will go back and find that post and quote it for you.

Logical

04-08-2005, 08:30 PM

Derrr, dat's stoo-pid.

Not since Lincoln faced Douglass has this nation witnessed such incisive analysis.

For such an intelligent guy (and I mean that literally) it is weird how you act when confronted with your own bigotry against gays. :hmmm:

Logical

04-08-2005, 08:33 PM

I decided not to make you ask Russ, here is the quote I am referencing. Sorry, but to be a fact you have to be able to prove it. You cannot either prove or disprove that being gay is a choice. I do not believe you can find a credible scientist that will claim as fact either side of the issue. It is like saying being left handed is a choice, you cannot find a left handed gene, but there is no denying a certain percentage of the population is predisposed to being left handed. For them the choice would be to do the unnatural thing and attempt to be right handed.

memyselfI

04-08-2005, 08:34 PM

Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and you will understand how and why this has happened in a formerly progressive place, Kansas.

http://www.tcfrank.com/

Logical

04-08-2005, 08:37 PM

That seems to be the only argument they can come up with. The poor, oppressed quasi-minority argument. If I was black, I'd be offended.

Yes I guess Jews cannot claim to have been oppressed either. Blacks should be offended by the Jewish people who claimed they were either oppressed or discriminated against. Only the color of your skin can cause that to happen. :shake:

Michael Michigan

04-08-2005, 09:41 PM

Jim:

Did you ever address this?

I hope to see society change and it is, California always leads the way and this is the trend out here, much greater tolerance and understanding. The rest of the country will follow, just slowly. It almost always does.

Hong Kong - A Hong Kong woman hiker who washed her face in a freshwater stream unwittingly returned home with a leech embedded in her left nostril, the Hong Kong Medical Journal reported in its April edition.

The woman did not realise anything was wrong until two weeks later when she felt there was something in her nose.

A first attempt by the family doctor to remove it failed due to profuse nosebleed while a second attempt in hospital was also unsuccessful as the leech retracted into her nose, the journal said in its report on the rare complaint.

Doctors finally managed to remove it using a nasal spray to anaesthetise the five-centimetre-long bloodsucker a month after it had invaded her nostril.

"After two minutes, the leech slowly moved out of the antrum (sinus) and was retrieved with forceps," it said.

"This form of leech infestation has not been previously reported," it added.

The woman could have suffocated if the leech had attached itself to her larynx, the journal said.

"I did not notice any leeches in the water," the 55-year-old housewife told the South China Morning Post.

"I am used to seeing all these worms in the water while hiking."

Another member of her hiking group had also suffered a similar leech infestation and was also treated, the journal said.

Logical

04-08-2005, 09:47 PM

Jim:

Did you ever address this?

Califorinia snobs..who needs 'em?

;)

I have to admit that I have seen a big change in attitude out here in five years. But the midstate farm belt is probably still vastly homophobic. Sad but true.

Logical

04-08-2005, 09:53 PM

... blacks prior to 1964 had no rights whatsoever. ....

Russ, that statement is wrong. They did have rights, however they were routinely abused. Perhaps you are too young to remember.

There were rights that were not extended to blacks, but that is not the same thing as having no rights whatsoever.

Michael Michigan

04-08-2005, 09:54 PM

I have to admit that I have seen a big change in attitude out here in five years. But the midstate farm belt is probably still vastly homophobic. Sad but true.

So I'm clear--it's the redneck hicks on farms in California that are homophobes?

Logical

04-08-2005, 10:05 PM

So I'm clear--it's the redneck hicks on farms in California that are homophobes?
I am not sure you would be accurate in calling them rednecks maybe not even hicks. Merely unsophisticated bigots.

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:08 PM

Russ, that statement is wrong. They did have rights, however they were routinely abused. Perhaps you are too young to remember.

There were rights that were not extended to blacks, but that is not the same thing as having no rights whatsoever.

I know you were talking to Russ, Jim...but...

Do you really find the analogy between blacks and gays to be accurate?

I mean, yes blacks had rights--as you say...but in many parts of the country (not just the South, BTW) blacks were still being treated as animals, as property, and as sub-human during the 1960s. The worse that can be said of gays, is they are ostracized....the despicable Matthew Shepherd case aside, as it is one of the rare exceptions.

I find it insulting, ignorant, and ludicrious for gay people to compare their plight with that of blacks during the pre-civil rights era.

Frankly anyone with a true sense of history would find such a parallel laughable.

Logical

04-08-2005, 10:19 PM

I know you were talking to Russ, Jim...but...

Do you really find the analogy between blacks and gays to be accurate?

I mean, yes blacks had rights--as you say...but in many parts of the country (not just the South, BTW) blacks were still being treated as animals, as property, and as sub-human during the 1960s.

I find it insulting, ignorant, and ludicrious for gay people to compare their plight with that of blacks during the pre-civil rights era.

Frankly anyone with a true sense of history would find such a parallel laughable.

I was alive in the 60s and what you say is only true for a very limited part of the country, at least to the degree you are writing about. There are parts of the country even today where gays would be treated the same. The difference is that by staying in the closet they can possibly avoid the abuse (providing they are not too effeminate). In fact from what I saw in the 60s in the midwest compared to farm belt midwest in the 80s blacks were treated on a whole much better and with more respect. I never understood the whole midwest gay hatred thing, I have to assume it is a result of the intolerance bred by religion.

Michael Michigan

04-08-2005, 10:21 PM

I am not sure you would be accurate in calling them rednecks maybe not even hicks. Merely unsophisticated bigots.

Perhaps my snob comment didn't need a wink.

But do tell--how are coastal elite in Califoria going to spread your version of enightenment to America when you can't even get it past the California/Arizona border?

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:26 PM

I was alive in the 60s and what you say is only true for a very limited part of the country, at least to the degree you are writing about. There are parts of the country even today where gays would be treated the same. The difference is that by staying in the closet they can possibly avoid the abuse (providing they are not too effeminate). In fact from what I saw in the 60s in the midwest compared to farm belt midwest in the 80s blacks were treated on a whole much better and with more respect. I never understood the whole midwest gay hatred thing, I have to assume it is a result of the intolerance bred by religion.

Race relations and riots in Chicago, Detroit, New York, and other "Northern" cities were among the worse in the nation during the Civil Rights movement. Of course, the South's reputation is well documented.

Can you name the cities where gays are beaten, lynched, and otherwise degraded publicly on a daily basis, anywhere approaching the treatment that blacks routinely faced in hundreds of cities around the country? Seriously. There are certainly many "known" gays and people who are NOT in the closet.

Could not your idea of intolerance be a rational and moral decision that homosexuality is a deviant and socially degenerate lifestyle--similar to alcoholism and addiction, for instance. How do you know other intellectual, rational, and reasonable people who disagree with you on this issue to be wrong, while you alone hold the truth? :shrug:

Logical

04-08-2005, 10:27 PM

Perhaps my snob comment didn't need a wink.

But do tell--how are coastal elite in Califoria going to spread your version of enightenment to America when you can't even get it past the California/Arizona border?

Trends pretty much have always started on the coasts and spread. I am sure you are aware of this, it has been true since I was a young and long before. The rate of change varies but the eventual change is a constant. The same was true of the tolerance of other discriminated groups. Do you deny this?

Michael Michigan

04-08-2005, 10:29 PM

Trends pretty much have always started on the coasts and spread. I am sure you are aware of this, it has been true since I was a young and long before. The rate of change varies but the eventual change is a constant. The same was true of the tolerance of other discriminated groups. Do you deny this?

Name the other groups.

Mr. Kotter

04-08-2005, 10:35 PM

Trends pretty much have always started on the coasts and spread. I am sure you are aware of this, it has been true since I was a young and long before. The rate of change varies but the eventual change is a constant. The same was true of the tolerance of other discriminated groups. Do you deny this?

Fashion and music trends? Perhaps.

Sorry, Jim most of the "enlightenment" on Civil Rights in history began in among white folks in CHURCHES and RELIGIOUS groups....especially in the Northeat, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio valley. Those three regions contributed 75% or more of the "Freedom Riders" and those who went to the South to register black voters. :hmmm:

Californians were too busy beatin' up Hispanics and Asians, and surfin'. :p

Logical

04-08-2005, 10:44 PM

Race relations and riots in Chicago, Detroit, New York, and other "Northern" cities were among the worse in the nation during the Civil Rights movement. Of course, the South's reputation is well documented.

Can you name the cities where gays are beaten, lynched, and otherwise degraded publicly on a daily basis, anywhere approaching the treatment that blacks routinely faced in hundreds of cities around the country? Seriously. There are certainly many "known" gays and people who are NOT in the closet.

Could not your idea of intolerance be a rational and moral decision that homosexuality is a deviant and socially degenerate lifestyle--similar to alcoholism and addiction, for instance. How do you know other intellectual, rational, and reasonable people who disagree with you on this issue to be wrong, while you alone hold the truth? :shrug:
Riots were quite uncommon and occured after major events such as MLKs assasination. I did not say racism did not exist just that the hatred and mistreatments extent was less severe than I saw in the midwestern farm belt in the 80s.

The second paragraphs events did not happen routinely in the 60s in fact outside the deep south those type of events probably did not happen routinely even in the 50s. Gays are routinely abused around the country and bigotry induced deaths are not all that uncommon. Lynchings are no better or worse than being beaten to death or dragged by a truck until you die.

Logical

04-08-2005, 10:51 PM

Name the other groups.Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, and Jewish individuals. Despite what Kotter thinks California was much more tolerant of Blacks earlier than the south and much of the central US. Texas seems to be an exception to the coastal rule when it comes to Hispanics, I found that Texas has had a seemingly low level of bigotry towards its Hispanic population as early as the early 70s. I am not old enough to remember other groups being discriminated against such as Irish, Polish and other immigrants but I am pretty sure that was long before the 60s when it occured.

Nightfyre

04-08-2005, 10:52 PM

If we make you sick, I suggest going elsewhere for a relevant conversation. Your mind is as closed as those you are railing against.

IMO, there is no reason to create a recognized relationship for a couple suffering from a simple mental aberration.

There is no "religion" involved in the law itself, in any of the 18 states whose majority have requested the act. That is merely a crutch used by extremists such as yourself who have no better argument.
A mental abberration is not as prevalent as 10% of the populace. Prove it. You can't deny these people a right to marriage, which is a GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, because you want to. Laws are put in place to protect people. This law protects no one.

Logical

04-08-2005, 11:07 PM

A mental abberration is not as prevalent as 10% of the populace. Prove it. You can't deny these people a right to marriage, which is a GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, because you want to. Laws are put in place to protect people. This law protects no one.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

trndobrd

04-09-2005, 01:52 AM

A mental abberration is not as prevalent as 10% of the populace. Prove it. You can't deny these people a right to marriage, which is a GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, because you want to. Laws are put in place to protect people. This law protects no one.

Marriage is a government institution? So there were no marriages prior to the establishment of our current Constitutional form of government? Marriages must have government sanction? You must have a license to get married?

Let me help you with the answers: No, Yes there were, No, not necessary in KS

BTW, I'm STILL trying to figure out how you prove the more education a person receives, the more liberal that person becomes. If you wouldn't mind taking a moment to revisit that claim.

Logical

04-09-2005, 02:08 AM

Marriage is a government institution? So there were no marriages prior to the establishment of our current Constitutional form of government? Marriages must have government sanction? You must have a license to get married?

Let me help you with the answers: No, Yes there were, No, not necessary in KS

BTW, I'm STILL trying to figure out how you prove the more education a person receives, the more liberal that person becomes. If you wouldn't mind taking a moment to revisit that claim.
Actually in the US marriage does have to have government sanction (a license) where do you live that you do not? By the way you are wrong about Kansas, the Priest told us he could not marry us unless we had a license during the call to set up the pre-marriage counseling required by the Catholic church. That was in Olathe Kansas. I do not know where you got the idea a license is not required.

Nightfyre

04-09-2005, 02:13 AM

Marriage is a government institution? So there were no marriages prior to the establishment of our current Constitutional form of government? Marriages must have government sanction? You must have a license to get married?

Let me help you with the answers: No, Yes there were, No, not necessary in KS

BTW, I'm STILL trying to figure out how you prove the more education a person receives, the more liberal that person becomes. If you wouldn't mind taking a moment to revisit that claim.
Marriage licenses are what the dispute is about. Not marriage in church or otherwise. The GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION of marriage is what is in question, which people can't seem to understand.
As for the educatin gap: In the 2004 polls, there was a 12% difference in vote breakdown. Bush had a 2% lead in those without a college degree. Kerry had a 10% lead with those who did have a college degree.

Marriage licenses are what the dispute is about. Not marriage in church or otherwise. The GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION of marriage is what is in question, which people can't seem to understand.
As for the educatin gap: In the 2004 polls, there was a 12% difference in vote breakdown. Bush had a 2% lead in those without a college degree. Kerry had a 10% lead with those who did have a college degree.

Here and I thought it was just that only stupid people would want to belong to religious organizations.;)

j/k

Nightfyre

04-09-2005, 02:23 AM

Here and I thought it was just that only stupid people would want to belong to religious organizations.;)

j/k
I almost consider the GOP a religious organization anymore...

Logical

04-09-2005, 02:30 AM

I almost consider the GOP a religious organization anymore...I am so disgusted with the way Congress and this administration have handled things since the election ignoring real issues and spending time on morals based bullshit like Terri Shaivo, Media/Entertainment control and Steroids I almost wish they had not won. Almost but unfortunately in the areas I truly decide my choices on, like the military and foreign policy they are so vastly superior to the Democrats that I could never vote for the Democrats.

Michael Michigan

04-09-2005, 02:37 AM

Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, and Jewish individuals.

So you equate these groups to homosexuals?

That's a mistake. These groups will vote against homosexual marriage in larger percentages than any others.

And as a whole, they despise being lumped in with them.

Logical

04-09-2005, 02:41 AM

So you equate these groups to homosexuals?

That's a mistake. These groups will vote against homosexual marriage in larger percentages than any others.

And as a whole, they despise being lumped in with them.Like that should make a difference. In general Hispanics hate being equated with Blacks as a minority that suffers discrimination. It does not make it any less valid, just like is true for gays.

Nightfyre

04-09-2005, 02:41 AM

I am so disgusted with the way Congress and this administration have handled things since the election ignoring real issues and spending time on morals based bullshit like Terri Shaivo, Media/Entertainment control and Steroids I almost wish they had not won. Almost but unfortunately in the areas I truly decide my choices on, like the military and foreign policy they are so vastly superior to the Democrats that I could never vote for the Democrats.
I feel you... Really, if only I could find a monetarist party with low levels of government intervention in the social spectrum.....

Nightfyre

04-09-2005, 02:41 AM

Like that should make a difference. In general Hispanics hate being equated with Blacks as a minority that suffers discrimination. It does not make it any less valid, just like is true for gays.
Ding ding ding!

Logical

04-09-2005, 02:43 AM

By the way Michael, I have always considered our views to be pretty close to in sync, I am really suprised by your views on this one topic.

Kind of interesting having an opposite view as you for once.

Michael Michigan

04-09-2005, 02:46 AM

Like that should make a difference. In general Hispanics hate being equated with Blacks as a minority that suffers discrimination. It does not make it any less valid, just like is true for gays.

It will make a difference at the polls. Those folks vote and don't like the idea of gay marriage.

States will continue to pass Constitutional amendments, including California.

Here's an enlightened nugget for the evening...your only chance for the foreseeable future is the Supreme Court.

Good luck.

Nightfyre

04-09-2005, 02:47 AM

Like that should make a difference. In general Hispanics hate being equated with Blacks as a minority that suffers discrimination. It does not make it any less valid, just like is true for gays.
You need to include women, vlad. They are the most recent peoples freed from oppression...

Nightfyre

04-09-2005, 02:48 AM

It will make a difference at the polls. Those folks vote and don't like the idea of gay marriage.

States will continue to pass Constitutional amendments, including California.

Here's an enlightened nugget for the evening...your only chance for the foreseeable future is the Supreme Court.

Good luck.
Yeah, right. What chance, with a swing voter and a liberal both on the edge of their lives...